silent-majority2On reading the recent half page diatribe on the Cape Paterson Special Charge Scheme in last week’s Sentinel-Times, it would be remiss of me to not dispute many of the inconsistent, incorrect and misleading statements.
Firstly, it’s hard to think one is representing the “silent majority” in this matter when the only published survey by the highly concerned and well informed ‘Preserve the Cape’ group shows over 90 per cent of residents contacted object to this severe impost on their lives.
These mostly elderly pensioners and retirees together with the young families have definitely not been hanging out with bated breath for such a scheme which is already affecting their health and very soon their financial situation.
Would any rational being pay this any credit at all?
True, Cape Paterson is a village type township filling up slowly with permanent residents wanting an affordable lifestyle and healthy environment but definitely not at the expense or the current serene, safe and laid back existence.
Does a person really want to spoil this idyllic lifestyle and be replaced with a “flourishing township” which would lead to overcrowding with poor infrastructure and amenities?
If so, one has to beg the question as to why those seeking such a lifestyle would not relocate to Cranbourne, Pakenham or even Wonthaggi!
A charge of $14,000 may seem small change to one lucky enough to reside in Wheeler Road, but I am astounded by a lack of any real empathy to say, a couple of pensioners in their eighties who through no fault of their own happened to settle in Cape Paterson on two blocks of land many decades ago and now are faced with an utterly unjust levy of more than $40,000 to satisfy the pet project of some councillor. Is this just? Is this proper representation of his constituents?
Additionally, any reliable real estate agent would most likely confirm that house prices in Cape Paterson have been declining over the last few years despite council increasing the ‘Capital Improved Value’ of our houses with associated double digit rate increases to feed their spending largess and lack of reasonable financial control.
As if a road that is already basically paved with no dust or drainage problems over the last three decades will miraculously increase by $22,000 in value when the grass verges are destroyed by unnecessary guttering, vehicles passing through speeding up and street parking as against nature strip parking.
As for the egotistical dissertation we received supporting one man’s personal opinion, not one point appeared to be supported by any fact based evidence or in fact any common logic.
On the contrary, Preserve the Cape’s Professor Nicholas Low and other members of the committee have on many occasions presented case studies from other councils experiencing similar issues and much more evidence in this debate against the need for a Special Charge Scheme that it should have been incumbent on Mr Duncan to appraise himself of this knowledge prior to his apparent self-indulgent “dissertation”.
Finally, to purport that everyone has to drive around Cape Paterson because it’s not safe to walk would signifies to me someone who should alight from his car, walk the streets, enjoy the ambiance, meet the friendly neighbours and then, and only then, will a balanced view be attained and maybe some understanding of how beautiful Cape can be without council forcing more imposts on the already highly taxed ratepayers.
Mothers do walk their infants along the streets, children ride their bikes in safety, dogs delight in being exercised but where has our Mr Duncan been all these years – in his car it would seem!
Mick Kendler, Cape Paterson.